State of Gujarat wins appeal on Private Secretaries' pay scale, corrigendum upheld

The State of Gujarat's appeals were successful, overturning the High Court's decision to grant a higher pay-scale to all Private Secretaries. The corrigendum upgrading 10% of the posts was upheld. C.G. Govindan's appeal for a higher pay-scale from a retrospective date was dismissed, affirming eligibility only after meeting criteria. Justice D.P. Wadhwa dissented, supporting the High Court's decision for equal pay, criticizing the State's stance as discriminatory.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Pay-scale entitlement of Private Secretaries to the Judges of the Gujarat High Court.
2. Application of Article 229 of the Constitution.
3. Principle of equal pay for equal work.
4. Parity between pay-scales of High Court staff and Secretariat staff.
5. Validity of the High Court's direction to upgrade pay-scales.
6. Applicability of judgments from other High Courts and the Supreme Court.
7. Specific claim of C.G. Govindan for a higher pay-scale from a retrospective date.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Pay-scale Entitlement of Private Secretaries to the Judges of the Gujarat High Court:
The primary issue was whether all Private Secretaries to the Judges of the Gujarat High Court should be granted the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4500. The High Court had accepted the contention of the Private Secretaries and granted the relief, which was challenged by the State of Gujarat.

2. Application of Article 229 of the Constitution:
Article 229 of the Constitution governs the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court, requiring the Chief Justice's rules to be approved by the Governor. The judgment emphasized that the Chief Justice's power to fix salaries is not absolute and requires the Governor's approval. The High Court's direction to grant the higher pay-scale without the Governor's approval was deemed inappropriate.

3. Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work:
The principle of equal pay for equal work was invoked but was found inapplicable. The work of Private Secretaries to High Court Judges was deemed different from that of Private Secretaries to Secretaries in the State Secretariat. The judgment highlighted that parity had been maintained over the years, and any increase in pay-scales in the Secretariat would create a legitimate expectation of a similar increase for the High Court staff.

4. Parity Between Pay-scales of High Court Staff and Secretariat Staff:
The judgment noted that a general parity between the pay-scales of High Court and Secretariat staff had been maintained. The promotional pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4500 was intended for senior Stenographers Grade I-cum-Private Secretaries with over 15 years of service to prevent stagnation. The High Court's direction to grant this pay-scale to all Private Secretaries irrespective of service length would disrupt this parity.

5. Validity of the High Court's Direction to Upgrade Pay-scales:
The High Court's direction to grant the higher pay-scale to all Private Secretaries was found unjustified. The judgment emphasized that such a direction should not circumvent the constitutional methodology outlined in Article 229, which requires the Governor's approval for salary-related decisions.

6. Applicability of Judgments from Other High Courts and the Supreme Court:
The judgment referenced decisions from the Delhi High Court and Kerala High Court. It was noted that the Delhi High Court's decision to grant a higher pay-scale to its Private Secretaries was based on specific circumstances and did not automatically apply to other High Courts. The Kerala High Court's decision, which denied similar claims, was distinguished based on different facts and legal principles.

7. Specific Claim of C.G. Govindan for a Higher Pay-scale from a Retrospective Date:
C.G. Govindan's appeal for a higher pay-scale from 1st January 1986 was dismissed. The judgment upheld the High Court's decision that Govindan, who joined the cadre of Private Secretaries in the High Court in 1990, could not claim the higher pay-scale for the period prior to his joining.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the State of Gujarat were allowed, setting aside the High Court's direction to grant the higher pay-scale to all Private Secretaries. The corrigendum dated 27.11.1991, which provided for upgrading 10% of the posts, was upheld. The appeal of C.G. Govindan was dismissed, affirming that he would be eligible for the higher pay-scale only after fulfilling the requisite criteria. The dissenting opinion by D.P. Wadhwa, J., however, supported the High Court's decision to grant the higher pay-scale to all Private Secretaries, emphasizing the discriminatory nature of the State Government's stand.

---